One of the things the author points out is that restaurants in SF are moving toward "fast dining" type setups that require less labour as well as simpler dishes

One of the things the author points out is that restaurants in SF are moving toward "fast dining" type setups that require less labour as well as simpler dishes. For the sake of argument, let us imagine that skyrocketing labour and housing costs make the traditional sit-down restaurant extinct in SF (or reduced to a handful of ultra-high-end establishments). This in turn makes being a waiter or a line cook no longer a viable profession in SF. If - and I recognize this is a gigantic if - enough of the massive amount of wealth being created by the SF tech industry can be taxed and shared with the people impacted by the loss of those jobs, so that they can continue to maintain a decent standard of living, is there actually a problem? When a waiter loses their job, I don't imagine it's the loss of waiting on tables that puts them in a tough spot. It's losing their income and their ability to afford food and shelter. The problem now is that the externalities of the tech industry fall upon low-wage workers whose jobs become economically unworkable. The rich are getting richer and the poor, poorer. But on the whole, total wealth is increasing. Why can't we redistribute some of the tech wealth to these put-upon low-wage workers and leave everyone better off?